The Official Saint John, NB Project Thread - Page 613

Uptownini · #**12241** Posted **Apr 30, 2021, 9:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

SJ has plenty of skyline presence. Focus should be on street interaction and neighbourhood compatibility. This building particularly is too long and bulky for anything taller and a taller build would make for a bulky and frankly poor impact on the overall skyline. Taller doesn't necessarily mean better.

Agreed. Streetfront commercial. Half the central peninsula residents walk to work and shop.

Uptownini · #**12242** Posted **Apr 30, 2021, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

And just like that, I see a couple guys in hard hats and vests snooping around the lots across from Place 400/the Beaverbrook.

I understand the lot beside it the LB is an Irving owned lot.
Iirc, I saw a concept drawing that resembled a Starbucks Drive-Thru.

Fischbob · #**12243** Posted **May 1, 2021, 11:39 PM**

A couple north SJ construction updates from Councillor MacKenzie's Facebook page.

74 Victoria Street (Housing Alternatives/Unified SJ Housing Co-Op):

Source

Madeleine Court, off of Taylor Avenue (Viva Developments):

Source

adamuptownsj · #**12244** Posted **May 17, 2021, 8:06 PM**

PAC agenda has an eighteen-bed care home and 33-unit townhouse development off Sea St on the west side in front of them. Predictable opposition- apparently scrubland between homes and a rail line is an important natural site.

Not impressed with the garage heavy facades of the proposed units. What a waste of a view.

PDF: https://pub-saintjohn.escribemeeting...ocumentId=7885

cdnguys · #**12245** Posted **May 17, 2021, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

PAC agenda has an eighteen-bed care home and 33-unit townhouse development off Sea St on the west side in front of them. Predictable opposition- apparently scrubland between homes and a rail line is an important natural site.

Not impressed with the garage heavy facades of the proposed units. What a waste of a view.

PDF: https://pub-saintjohn.escribemeeting...ocumentId=7885

Seems to be standard nowadays. Between this development, Sea St and Fallsview that’s over 85 new townhomes just for West side

Helladog · #**12246** Posted **May 18, 2021, 10:45 AM**

Crane @ Wellington

RaginRonic · #**12247** Posted **May 26, 2021, 5:45 AM**

Sorry for the break in project talk, but we now have a clear picture as to who will be governing Saint John from this year until 2025. It's laid out below.

2021-2025 Saint John Common Council

Mayor
Donna E. Reardon

Councillors At Large
Brent Harris
H. Gary Sullivan(incumbent)

Ward 1
Greg Norton(incumbent)
Joanna F.E. Killen

Ward 2
Barry Ogden
John MacKenzie(incumbent)

Ward 3
Gerry Lowe
David Hickey(incumbent)

Ward 4
Greg R. Stewart
Paula Radwan or Gina E. Hooley*

*Hooley, who finished in 3rd place in the Ward 4 vote, can request a recount as she lost by only 8 votes, which is within the 25-vote threshold to ask for a second look.

And having both Gerry Lowe and Barry Ogden on the Horseshoe will be a fun test of wills to see. Might see some funny moments between the 2. XD

So that's that.

=P

Uptownini · #**12248** Posted **Jun 4, 2021, 6:46 PM**

Rezoning for Technology Dr.
https://saintjohn.ca/en/news-and-not...chnology-drive

adamuptownsj · #**12249** Posted **Jun 4, 2021, 6:48 PM**

Someone bought the 8 lots featuring St John the Baptist Church and its rectory on Broad. That was fast.

Pugsley · #**12250** Posted **Jun 7, 2021, 7:17 PM**

Hey there, I am doing some research in an attempt to find out what ever happened to the Marco Polo project in Saint John. From what I can see, it was pretty much built, then it had nowhere to be docked. It is a shame this never materialized as a waterfront attraction - in my opinion. Is it dead in the water? (Pun intended) LOL

darkharbour · #**12251** Posted **Jun 8, 2021, 12:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pugsley

Hey there, I am doing some research in an attempt to find out what ever happened to the Marco Polo project in Saint John. From what I can see, it was pretty much built, then it had nowhere to be docked. It is a shame this never materialized as a waterfront attraction - in my opinion. Is it dead in the water? (Pun intended) LOL

It cannot be docked because it isn't watertight or seaworthy, it was built as a 1/3 scale replica to just sit on the ground somewhere. It's currently sitting in a gravel pit because it wasn't built or designed with any particular location determined, requires a covering at all times, and it's not really appealing to any developer currently looking at the waterfront (and I agree).

Pugsley · #**12252** Posted **Jun 8, 2021, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkharbour

It cannot be docked because it isn't watertight or seaworthy, it was built as a 1/3 scale replica to just sit on the ground somewhere. It's currently sitting in a gravel pit because it wasn't built or designed with any particular location determined, requires a covering at all times, and it's not really appealing to any developer currently looking at the waterfront (and I agree).

OK...thanks for this. I was not aware that it 1) wasn't seaworthy and that it was 2) only 1/3 the size. What a waste of funding and effort.

I was thinking, if it was full size, it would have been a great addition to the inlet at Long Wharf - to act like a connecting attraction between Market Square and any future Long Wharf developments. Similar to when Bluenose docked at Halifax or the tall ships once docked at Portsmouth and Liverpool waterfronts. I wonder how much a full-size replica would cost.

JHikka · #**12253** Posted **Jun 8, 2021, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pugsley

OK...thanks for this. I was not aware that it 1) wasn't seaworthy and that it was 2) only 1/3 the size. What a waste of funding and effort.

I was thinking, if it was full size, it would have been a great addition to the inlet at Long Wharf - to act like a connecting attraction between Market Square and any future Long Wharf developments. Similar to when Bluenose docked at Halifax or the tall ships once docked at Portsmouth and Liverpool waterfronts. I wonder how much a full-size replica would cost.

Given the headaches around the rebuild of the Bluenose II I think it would be best to avoid any sort of replica work. The eventual Bluenose rebuild, after delays, ended up at roughly $16M.

MonctonRad · #**12254** Posted **Jun 8, 2021, 2:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

Given the headaches around the rebuild of the Bluenose II I think it would be best to avoid any sort of replica work. The eventual Bluenose rebuild, after delays, ended up at roughly $16M.

A 1/3rd scale replica does seem like an awful waste, especially when there is no exhibit space. A smaller replica that might have been displayed at Market Square could have been appropriate.

cdnguys · #**12255** Posted **Jun 12, 2021, 5:33 PM**

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Fischbob · #**12256** Posted **Jun 13, 2021, 12:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uptownini

Rezoning for Technology Dr.
https://saintjohn.ca/en/news-and-not...chnology-drive

There's a bit more information in Monday's Council package. link

Turns out this proposal is a big one - 8 buildings ranging from 4 to 7 storeys totalling over 500 units!

No site plan yet but here is a snippet from the application package:

Developer is Somerset Investments Limited and their planning consultant is Fathom out of HRM.

JHikka · #**12257** Posted **Jun 14, 2021, 3:29 PM**

731 parking spaces for 506 units? Blah.

darkharbour · #**12258** Posted **Jun 14, 2021, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

731 parking spaces for 506 units? Blah.

I was thinking the same thing, I know it is probably standard for a more suburban apartment, but seems a lot for what is a fairly central, transit-accessed development. We’ll never get more bike and bus ridership if we keep enabling the ease of parking in near-by neighbourhoods.

cdnguys · #**12259** Posted **Jun 14, 2021, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkharbour

I was thinking the same thing, I know it is probably standard for a more suburban apartment, but seems a lot for what is a fairly central, transit-accessed development. We’ll never get more bike and bus ridership if we keep enabling the ease of parking in near-by neighbourhoods.

They must be targeting working couples
Once built out there would be well over 1000 people living on Technology/Forbes/Sussex. Nice density

JHikka · #**12260** Posted **Jun 14, 2021, 4:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnguys

They must be targeting working couples
Once built out there would be well over 1000 people living on Technology/Forbes/Sussex. Nice density

The density doesn't really matter if everyone's driving to and from places. You're simply left with a glorified suburb inside the city centre. Like, you can look at Brentwood Towers and say 'good density' but its existence hasn't changed Millidgeville from being a car-dependent suburb since being built, and it's likely that as built this development won't do that, either. We can probably get into a discussion on whether or not we should focus on Technology being more walkable (it's a dead-end at the top of a hill), but it's a poor precedent to set when we should be focusing on more active transportation and transit options in the city's core.

Two months after these are built all we'll be hearing about is how we need traffic lights at Millidge & Sussex and at Technology & Somerset. I don't want to play the NIMBY card but i'm sure people on Sussex Drive are thrilled about the idea of 500+ cars living above them.